Common instruments on small aircraft

Wade Hasbrouck wrote:
"Mxsmanic" wrote
If you have understanding passengers, fine. If they are going to a
wedding or job interview, though, this is a serious problem.

Again you are inferring that the Private Pilot can ignore FAR Part 91 and
FAR 61.113 when they want to help out friends. If a friend comes to me and
says "I have a wedding or job interview to go to, could you fly me there?",
this would most likely be considered a violation of 61.113, and would be
illegal for a Private Pilot to do.

That's absurd. Someone asking to be flown somewhere is in no way a
violation of the FARs. If it were, most GA pilots would be in violation
almost every time they fly.

Case in point - you said in a previous post:

" I had a coworker who wanted to go have lunch at PWT (Bremerton
National) on a Saturday morning."

So by your own interpretation, *you* are in violation of FAR 61.113.

In order for a violation to occur, there has to be compensation (which
may or may not be monetary) which the above situations, as described,
do not include.



Not at all. You could have commitments to friends or relatives to
transport them here or there, with no money involved.

FAA could still consider this as flying for compensation, which is
prohibited under Part 91 and FAR 61.113. FAA has said that compensation
doesn't have to be monetary in nature to violate FAR 61.113.

Again - in his scenario, no compensation is described, so it is
perfectly legal. The word "commitment" does not inherently imply
compensation. A commitment is merely an obligation to an agreement.

"Bart" wrote in message
oups.com...

SNIP

That's absurd. Someone asking to be flown somewhere is in no way a
violation of the FARs. If it were, most GA pilots would be in violation
almost every time they fly.

Case in point - you said in a previous post:

" I had a coworker who wanted to go have lunch at PWT (Bremerton
National) on a Saturday morning."

So by your own interpretation, *you* are in violation of FAR 61.113.

In order for a violation to occur, there has to be compensation (which
may or may not be monetary) which the above situations, as described,
do not include.

I may be confusing this type of situation with a different scenario, but,
IIRC, you also have to be able to prove a "commonality" for making the
flight. Just being amenable to giving a buddy a lift somewhere because *he*
wants to go there is not enough if YOU don't really have a reason to go
there beyond helping your buddy. You have to have a reason to go too.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

"Bart" wrote in
oups.com:

Wade Hasbrouck wrote:
"Mxsmanic" wrote
If you have understanding passengers, fine. If they are going to a
wedding or job interview, though, this is a serious problem.

Again you are inferring that the Private Pilot can ignore FAR Part 91
and FAR 61.113 when they want to help out friends. If a friend comes
to me and says "I have a wedding or job interview to go to, could you
fly me there?", this would most likely be considered a violation of
61.113, and would be illegal for a Private Pilot to do.

That's absurd. Someone asking to be flown somewhere is in no way a
violation of the FARs. If it were, most GA pilots would be in
violation almost every time they fly.

Case in point - you said in a previous post:

" I had a coworker who wanted to go have lunch at PWT (Bremerton
National) on a Saturday morning."

So by your own interpretation, *you* are in violation of FAR 61.113.

In order for a violation to occur, there has to be compensation
(which
may or may not be monetary) which the above situations, as described,
do not include.



Not at all. You could have commitments to friends or relatives to
transport them here or there, with no money involved.

FAA could still consider this as flying for compensation, which is
prohibited under Part 91 and FAR 61.113. FAA has said that
compensation doesn't have to be monetary in nature to violate FAR
61.113.

Again - in his scenario, no compensation is described, so it is
perfectly legal. The word "commitment" does not inherently imply
compensation. A commitment is merely an obligation to an agreement.


The FAA has ruled in the past that the ability to log the flight time
(whether or not you actually do so) is in and of itself compensation.

If your friend invites you to attend the wedding, then there is no
problem, as you have a common purpose for the trip where the air
transportation is incidental. But if you are only flying to transport your
friend to the wedding and you have no other purpose in going on the flight,
then you are in violation.

There are some exceptions for private pilots as specified either in
the FARs or by FAA policy specified in the Air Transportation Operations
Inspector's Handbook, Order 8400.10. The ones I'm aware of are FAR 91.321
regarding the carriage of candidates in elections or the policy stated in
8400.10 section 1345 for "Life Flights" (like Angel Flight) where a private
pilot is allowed to take a tax deduction and inspectors are specifically
instructed not to treat this tax deductibility of costs as constituting
"compensation for hire".

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

Marty Shapiro wrote:
"Bart" wrote:
The FAA has ruled in the past that the ability to log the flight time
(whether or not you actually do so) is in and of itself compensation.

If your friend invites you to attend the wedding, then there is no
problem, as you have a common purpose for the trip where the air
transportation is incidental. But if you are only flying to transport your
friend to the wedding and you have no other purpose in going on the flight,
then you are in violation.

As long as the pilot pays for the entire cost of operating the aircraft
(ie - no pro rata sharing of expenses), it is legal.

Logging flight time is considered compensation on flights where there
is sharing of expenses. The added "compensation" to the pilot (beyond
the sharing of expenses) of being able to log flight time violates the
pro rata.

"Bart" wrote in
ups.com:

Marty Shapiro wrote:
"Bart" wrote:
The FAA has ruled in the past that the ability to log the
flight time
(whether or not you actually do so) is in and of itself compensation.

If your friend invites you to attend the wedding, then there
is no
problem, as you have a common purpose for the trip where the air
transportation is incidental. But if you are only flying to
transport your friend to the wedding and you have no other purpose in
going on the flight, then you are in violation.

As long as the pilot pays for the entire cost of operating the
aircraft (ie - no pro rata sharing of expenses), it is legal.

Logging flight time is considered compensation on flights where there
is sharing of expenses. The added "compensation" to the pilot (beyond
the sharing of expenses) of being able to log flight time violates the
pro rata.



Inspector's for at least 2 FSDO's that I'm aware of say otherwise.
They were very clear in different Wings safety seminars that providing air
transportation for a friend is NOT permitted for a private pilot. One even
stated that the FAA added the definition of logging time as compensation
for this exact case, where the pilot does not charge at all. They
empasized that unless you were going to make the trip regardless of whether
or not your friend was going along, you would be violating the FARs.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

Marty Shapiro writes:

Inspector's for at least 2 FSDO's that I'm aware of say otherwise.
They were very clear in different Wings safety seminars that providing air
transportation for a friend is NOT permitted for a private pilot. One even
stated that the FAA added the definition of logging time as compensation
for this exact case, where the pilot does not charge at all. They
empasized that unless you were going to make the trip regardless of whether
or not your friend was going along, you would be violating the FARs.

That rules out a great deal of the motivation for GA, and thus makes
no sense.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Marty Shapiro wrote:
Inspector's for at least 2 FSDO's that I'm aware of
say otherwise. They were very clear in different Wings
safety seminars that providing air transportation for a
friend is NOT permitted for a private pilot. One even
stated that the FAA added the definition of logging time
as compensation for this exact case, where the
pilot does not charge at all.

If it's your own airplane and you pay 100% of fuel and other
direct costs, logging the time can't possibly be compensation.
You can fly the plane any time you want. Having a friend in the
right seat doesn't make any difference. If I want to build time
for a rating, I can fly solo to places I rather not go to, like
the food at that airport restaurant sucks. Or I can do a favor
for a friend and take him there for free upon request.

The FAA has also ruled that they cannot make an assumption that
logged time is of any value. I have my IR and am too old
(drawing Social Security) for an ATP to be worth anything. How
is my logged time in my plane compensatory?

Fred F.

The FAA has also ruled that they cannot make an assumption that logged time is of any value.

Where? I'd like to see the case.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
The FAA has also ruled that they cannot make an
assumption that logged time is of any value.

Where? I'd like to see the case.


It was in the ruling issued to the warbird museum guys. The
issue was whether the motel bill paid for any private pilot who
ferries the warbirds to air shows is compensation. Yes it is, but
conceptually silly here. Like, “I’m not flying that B-17 unless
you pay for my motel!” The ruling also said, “We prefer not to
rule” on whether logging time is of any value, but not a problem,
it said, if you don’t log the time. Just about anyone would want
to log warbird time, so they left open the question were the
pilot to pay for the motel but log the time.

However, I don’t think there’s a single NTSB case where logging
time alone was compensatory in your own airplane. Conceptually,
the idea of a pax providing an opportunity to spend your own
money and calling it compensatory as to the mere opportunity I
think is absurd.

Fred F.

"TxSrv" wrote in message
. ..

The FAA has also ruled that they cannot make an assumption that logged
time is of any value. I have my IR and am too old (drawing Social
Security) for an ATP to be worth anything. How is my logged time in my
plane compensatory?

Fred F.

The rulings don't have to make common sense. You must have commonality,"
which means you can't fly someone around for their convenience. That's 135.

Karl
"Curaor" N185KG